Interpretations Act definitions of Person..."Includes" meaning that which comes after the word includes, A dead in law corporation!!

DEFINITIONS Marginal note:General definitions 35. (1) In every enactment, “Act” « loi provinciale » “Act”, as meaning an Act of a legislature, includes an ordinance of the Northwest Territories and a law of the Legislature of Yukon or of the Legislature for Nunavut; “bank” « banque » “bank” means a bank listed in Schedule I or II to the Bank Act; “British Commonwealth” or “British Commonwealth of Nations” « Commonwealth », « Commonwealth britannique », « Commonwealth des nations » ou « Commonwealth des nations britanniques » “British Commonwealth” or “British Commonwealth of Nations” has the same meaning as “Commonwealth”; “broadcasting” « radiodiffusion » “broadcasting” means any radiocommunication in which the transmissions are intended for direct reception by the general public; “Canada” « Canada » “Canada”, for greater certainty, includes the internal waters of Canada and the territorial sea of Canada; “Canadian waters” « eaux canadiennes » “Canadian waters” includes the territorial sea of Canada and the internal waters of Canada; “Clerk of the Privy Council” or “Clerk of the Queen’s Privy Council” « greffier du Conseil privé » ou « greffier du Conseil privé de la Reine » “Clerk of the Privy Council” or “Clerk of the Queen’s Privy Council” means the Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet; “commencement” Version anglaise seulement “commencement”, when used with reference to an enactment, means the time at which the enactment comes into force; “Commonwealth” or “Commonwealth of Nations” « Commonwealth », « Commonwealth britannique », « Commonwealth des nations » ou « Commonwealth des nations britanniques » “Commonwealth” or “Commonwealth of Nations” means the association of countries named in the schedule; “Commonwealth and Dependent Territories” « Commonwealth et dépendances » “Commonwealth and Dependent Territories” means the several Commonwealth countries and their colonies, possessions, dependencies, protectorates, protected states, condominiums and trust territories; “contiguous zone” « zone contiguë » “contiguous zone”, (a) in relation to Canada, means the contiguous zone of Canada as determined under the Oceans Act, and (b) in relation to any other state, means the contiguous zone of the other state as determined in accordance with international law and the domestic laws of that other state; “continental shelf” « plateau continental » “continental shelf”, (a) in relation to Canada, means the continental shelf of Canada as determined under the Oceans Act, and (b) in relation to any other state, means the continental shelf of the other state as determined in accordance with international law and the domestic laws of that other state; “contravene” « contravention » “contravene” includes fail to comply with; “corporation” « personne morale » “corporation” does not include a partnership that is considered to be a separate legal entity under provincial law; “county” « comté » “county” includes two or more counties united for purposes to which the enactment relates; “county court” “county court”[Repealed, 1990, c. 17, s. 26] “diplomatic or consular officer” « agent diplomatique ou consulaire » “diplomatic or consular officer” includes an ambassador, envoy, minister, chargé d’affaires, counsellor, secretary, attaché, consul-general, consul, vice-consul, pro-consul, consular agent, acting consul-general, acting consul, acting vice-consul, acting consular agent, high commissioner, permanent delegate, adviser, acting high commissioner, and acting permanent delegate; “exclusive economic zone” « zone économique exclusive » “exclusive economic zone”, (a) in relation to Canada, means the exclusive economic zone of Canada as determined under the Oceans Act and includes the seabed and subsoil below that zone, and (b) in relation to any other state, means the exclusive economic zone of the other state as determined in accordance with international law and the domestic laws of that other state; “Federal Court” “Federal Court”[Repealed, 2002, c. 8, s. 151] “Federal Court — Appeal Division” “Federal Court — Appeal Division” or “Federal Court of Appeal”[Repealed, 2002, c. 8, s. 151] “Federal Court — Trial Division” “Federal Court — Trial Division”[Repealed, 2002, c. 8, s. 151] “Governor”, “Governor General” or “Governor of Canada” « gouverneur », « gouverneur du Canada » ou « gouverneur général » “Governor”, “Governor General” or “Governor of Canada” means the Governor General of Canada or other chief executive officer or administrator carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the name of the Sovereign, by whatever title that officer is designated; “Governor General in Council” or “Governor in Council” « gouverneur en conseil » ou « gouverneur général en conseil » “Governor General in Council” or “Governor in Council” means the Governor General of Canada acting by and with the advice of, or by and with the advice and consent of, or in conjunction with the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada; “Great Seal” « grand sceau » “Great Seal” means the Great Seal of Canada; “Her Majesty”, “His Majesty”, “the Queen”, “the King” or “the Crown” « Sa Majesté », « la Reine », « le Roi » ou « la Couronne » “Her Majesty”, “His Majesty”, “the Queen”, “the King” or “the Crown” means the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories, and Head of the Commonwealth; “Her Majesty’s Realms and Territories” « royaumes et territoires de Sa Majesté » “Her Majesty’s Realms and Territories” means all realms and territories under the sovereignty of Her Majesty; “herein” Version anglaise seulement “herein” used in any section shall be understood to relate to the whole enactment, and not to that section only; “holiday” « jour férié » “holiday” means any of the following days, namely, Sunday; New Year’s Day; Good Friday; Easter Monday; Christmas Day; the birthday or the day fixed by proclamation for the celebration of the birthday of the reigning Sovereign; Victoria Day; Canada Day; the first Monday in September, designated Labour Day; Remembrance Day; any day appointed by proclamation to be observed as a day of general prayer or mourning or day of public rejoicing or thanksgiving; and any of the following additional days, namely, (a) in any province, any day appointed by proclamation of the lieutenant governor of the province to be observed as a public holiday or as a day of general prayer or mourning or day of public rejoicing or thanksgiving within the province, and any day that is a non-juridical day by virtue of an Act of the legislature of the province, and (b) in any city, town, municipality or other organized district, any day appointed to be observed as a civic holiday by resolution of the council or other authority charged with the administration of the civic or municipal affairs of the city, town, municipality or district; “internal waters” « eaux intérieures » “internal waters”, (a) in relation to Canada, means the internal waters of Canada as determined under the Oceans Act and includes the airspace above and the bed and subsoil below those waters, and (b) in relation to any other state, means the waters on the landward side of the baselines of the territorial sea of the other state; “legislative assembly”, “legislative council” or “legislature” « législature », « assemblée législative » ou « conseil législatif » “legislative assembly”, “legislative council” or “legislature” includes the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, as constituted before September 1, 1905, the Legislature of Yukon, the Commissioner in Council of the Northwest Territories, and the Legislature for Nunavut; “lieutenant governor” « lieutenant-gouverneur » “lieutenant governor” means the lieutenant governor or other chief executive officer or administrator carrying on the government of the province indicated by the enactment, by whatever title that officer is designated, and in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut means the Commissioner; “lieutenant governor in council” « lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil » “lieutenant governor in council” means the lieutenant governor acting by and with the advice of, by and with the advice and consent of, or in conjunction with, the executive council of the province indicated by the enactment, and in Yukon, means the Commissioner of Yukon acting with the consent of the Executive Council of Yukon and, in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, means the Commissioner; “local time” « heure locale » “local time”, in relation to any place, means the time observed in that place for the regulation of business hours; “military” « militaire » “military” shall be construed as relating to all or any part of the Canadian Forces; “month” « mois » “month” means a calendar month; “oath” and “sworn” « serment » “oath” includes a solemn affirmation or declaration when the context applies to any person by whom and to any case in which a solemn affirmation or declaration may be made instead of an oath, and in the same cases the expression “sworn” includes the expression “affirmed” or “declared”; “Parliament” « Parlement » “Parliament” means the Parliament of Canada; “person” « personne » “person”, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation; “proclamation” « proclamation » “proclamation” means a proclamation under the Great Seal; “province” « province » “province” means a province of Canada, and includes Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut; “radio” or “radiocommunication” « radiocommunication » ou « radio » “radio” or “radiocommunication” means any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds or intelligence of any nature by means of electromagnetic waves of frequencies lower than 3 000 GHz propagated in space without artificial guide; “regular force” « force régulière » “regular force” means the component of the Canadian Forces that is referred to in the National Defence Act as the regular force; “reserve force” « force de réserve » “reserve force” means the component of the Canadian Forces that is referred to in the National Defence Act as the reserve force; “security” and “sureties” « caution » ou « cautionnement » “security” means sufficient security, and “sureties” means sufficient sureties, and when those words are used one person is sufficient therefor, unless otherwise expressly required; “standard time” « heure normale » “standard time”, except as otherwise provided by any proclamation of the Governor in Council that may be issued for the purposes of this definition in relation to any province or territory or any part thereof, means (a) in relation to the Province of Newfoundland, Newfoundland standard time, being three hours and thirty minutes behind Greenwich time, (b) in relation to the Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, that part of the Province of Quebec lying east of the sixty-third meridian of west longitude, and that part of Nunavut lying east of the sixty-eighth meridian of west longitude, Atlantic standard time, being four hours behind Greenwich time, (c) in relation to that part of the Province of Quebec lying west of the sixty-third meridian of west longitude, that part of the Province of Ontario lying between the sixty-eighth and the ninetieth meridians of west longitude, Southampton Island and the islands adjacent to Southampton Island, and that part of Nunavut lying between the sixty-eighth and the eighty-fifth meridians of west longitude, eastern standard time, being five hours behind Greenwich time, (d) in relation to that part of the Province of Ontario lying west of the ninetieth meridian of west longitude, the Province of Manitoba, and that part of Nunavut, except Southampton Island and the islands adjacent to Southampton Island, lying between the eighty-fifth and the one hundred and second meridians of west longitude, central standard time, being six hours behind Greenwich time, (e) in relation to the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, the Northwest Territories and that part of Nunavut lying west of the one hundred and second meridian of west longitude, mountain standard time, being seven hours behind Greenwich time, (f) in relation to the Province of British Columbia, Pacific standard time, being eight hours behind Greenwich time, and (g) in relation to Yukon, Yukon standard time, being nine hours behind Greenwich time; “statutory declaration” « déclaration solennelle » “statutory declaration” means a solemn declaration made pursuant to section 41 of the Canada Evidence Act; “superior court” « juridiction supérieure » ou « cour supérieure » “superior court” means (a) in the Province of Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland, the Supreme Court, (a.1) in the Province of Ontario, the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the Superior Court of Justice, (b) in the Province of Quebec, the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court in and for the Province, (c) in the Province of New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta, the Court of Appeal for the Province and the Court of Queen’s Bench for the Province, (d) in the Provinces of Nova Scotia and British Columbia, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of the Province, and (e) the Supreme Court of Yukon, the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories and the Nunavut Court of Justice, and includes the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court and the Tax Court of Canada; “telecommunications” « télécommunication » “telecommunications” means the emission, transmission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds or intelligence of any nature by any wire, cable, radio, optical or other electromagnetic system, or by any similar technical system; “territorial sea” « mer territoriale » “territorial sea”, (a) in relation to Canada, means the territorial sea of Canada as determined under the Oceans Act and includes the airspace above and the seabed and subsoil below that sea, and (b) in relation to any other state, means the territorial sea of the other state as determined in accordance with international law and the domestic laws of that other state; “territory” « territoires » “territory” means Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut; “two justices” « deux juges de paix » “two justices” means two or more justices of the peace, assembled or acting together; “United Kingdom” « Royaume-Uni » “United Kingdom” means the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; “United States” « États-Unis » “United States” means the United States of America; “writing” « écrit » “writing”, or any term of like import, includes words printed, typewritten, painted, engraved, lithographed, photographed or represented or reproduced by any mode of representing or reproducing words in visible form. Marginal note:Governor in Council may amend schedule (2) The Governor in Council may, by order, amend the schedule by adding thereto the name of any country recognized by the order to be a member of the Commonwealth or deleting therefrom the name of any country recognized by the order to be no longer a member of the Commonwealth. R.S., 1985, c. I-21, s. 35; R.S., 1985, c. 11 (1st Supp.), s. 2, c. 27 (2nd Supp.), s. 10; 1990, c. 17, s. 26; 1992, c. 1, s. 91, c. 47, s. 79, c. 51, s. 56; 1993, c. 28, s. 78, c. 38, s. 87; 1995, c. 39, s. 174; 1996, c. 31, s. 87; 1998, c. 15, s. 28, c. 30, ss. 13(F), 15(E); 1999, c. 3, s. 71, c. 28, s. 168; 2002, c. 7, s. 188, c. 8, s. 151. Previous Version

EXCLUSIVE NEW BIBLE YANKS 'FATHER,' JESUS AS 'SON OF GOD'

WND EXCLUSIVE
NEW BIBLE YANKS 'FATHER,' JESUS AS 'SON OF GOD'
Islam-sensitive project ignites controversy, online petition
Published: 01/30/2012 at 8:54 PM

By Joel Richardson

In the world of questionable and sometimes downright silly Bible translations, one would think that it couldn’t get any worse.


After all, we’ve seen the “In da beginnin’ Big Daddy created da heaven an’ da earth” Ebonics Bible, as well as the “Apostle’s Log” Star Trek English paraphrase Bible. In a more serious effort, the New Oxford Annotated Bible was created in part by pro-”gay” and feminist scholars in order to set forth a more “gay” revisionist interpretation of Scripture.

But now there is a major controversy developing as the latest altered Bibles are being created by organizations that most would think of as being more conservative and reasonable. At the forefront of the controversy are the Wycliffe Bible Translators, the Summer Institute of Linguistics and Frontiers, all of which are producing Bible translations that remove or modify terms which they have deemed offensive to Muslims.

That’s right: Muslim-friendly Bibles.

Included in the controversial development is the removal of any references to God as “Father,” to Jesus as the “Son” or “the Son of God.” One example of such a change can be seen in an Arabic version of the Gospel of Matthew produced and promoted by Frontiers and SIL. It changes Matthew 28:19 from this:

“baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”

to this:

“cleanse them by water in the name of Allah, his Messiah and his Holy Spirit.”

A large number of such Muslim-sensitive translations already are published and well-circulated in several Muslim-majority nations such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia.

According to Joshua Lingel of i2 Ministries, “Even more dramatic a change is the Arabic and Bangla (Bangladesh) translations. In Arabic, Bible translations err by translating ‘Father’ as ‘Lord.’ ‘Guardian.’ ‘Most High’ and ‘God.” In Bangla, ‘Son of God’ is mistranslated ‘Messiah of God’ consistent with the Quran’s Isa al-Masih (Jesus the Messiah), which references the merely human Jesus.”

In response to these translations, many within the evangelical missions movement as well as many former Muslim converts and indigenous Christians from countries where these translations are being used, are indignant. After numerous appeals have been rejected, a petition has been launched to call for the end to the translations.

More than 3,000 already have signed up.

While the organizations that are promoting these translations are adamant that replacing such terms as Father with Lord or Master best conveys the inspired meaning of the text, many of the indigenous Christian leaders from the countries where these translations are being promoted are broadly rejecting the translations.

The indigenous believers see the introduction of these American-made translations with which they so strongly disagree as a form of American cultural imperialism or colonialism.

According to Turkish pastor Fikret Böcek, such new translations are, “an all-American idea with absolutely no respect for the sacredness of Scripture, or even of the growing Turkish church.”

According to the testimony of one leader from a church in Bangladesh, one of the most problematic aspects of this development is that it gives fuel to the often-heard Muslim claim that Christians are liars who change their Bibles to deceive Muslims. Once a Bible translation is well established within any country, the introduction of such radically different translations reinforces the Muslim charge and undermines trust in the Christian community.

According to Lingel, who can be contacted at info@i2ministries.org, the crisis in translation methodology is largely due to “a postmodern literary bias” that has crept into some translation circles in recent decades. Such translations would seem to demand that the divine author of the Bible change rather than the Muslim reader.

“But Jesus demanded that many of his listeners change,” says Lingel, explaining that instead of demanding that Muslim readers change their understanding of God, these translations seem to convey that God must accommodate the religious prejudices of Muslims.

“Lingel is also the co-editor of a new book, “Chrislam: How Missionaries Are Promoting an Islamized Gospel,” which represents the first major response against Muslim-sensitive translations as well as the larger movement often referred to as the “Insider Movement” or “Chrislam.”

According to reports, of the roughly 200 translation projects Wycliffe/SIL linguists have undertaken in Muslim contexts, about 30 or 40 remove the terms father and son with reference to God and Jesus.

Lingel’s response is quite direct, “These projects need to be defunded.”

Yet according to a recent Forbes “200 Largest U.S. Charities” report, the Orlando-based Wycliffe Bible Translators USA is the third most well-funded religious charity in the states.

Proponents of the Insider Movement claim that this method of reaching Muslims is bearing great fruit. Opponents, however, point out that the so-called converts within the Insider Movement remain “hidden” within their Muslim culture, continue to attend mosque, pray like a Muslim, acknowledge Muhammad as a prophet, the Quran as inspired, and make the Muslim credal confession, known as the “shahada.”

Some now claim that there are as many as 300,000-1.2 million new “Insider believers” in Bangladesh. But one former Insider who left the movement and speaks out in Lingel’s Chrislam book reports that the number of insiders couldn’t be more than 10,000. According to this source, many of the claims are greatly exaggerated so as to bring in more funding from wealthy American missionary organizations.

“Other former Insiders have reported publicly that many Insiders are really Muslims who will do whatever it takes for the jobs and money they are offered by pro-IM ministries to feed their families,” Lingel says.

Further questioning the funding and support of well-known Christian organizations of this movement, Lingel recounts, “I have consulted with the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention on missions and evangelism among Muslims at various times… [Who] stated that there are tens of thousands of Isa al-masih jamaats, or ‘Jesus congregations,’ in northern Africa. But the members of these jamaats call themselves Muslims, do not believe in the Trinity and believe Muhammad is a prophet of God. Are they Christians or Muslims? Why talk about them in terms of missionary success?”

In response to what many Christians see as a heretical movement based on deception, Lingel’s i2 Ministries is in the process of completing a video-based university called Mission Muslims World University, with 40 of the most experienced professors from around the world teaching courses in Muslim ministries, Islamic Studies, apologetics, evangelism and discipleship.

How a Stimulus Bill works....or how to float a loan with the bank not catching on...

THE $100 BILL, A NOT-FUNNY STORY
2012 Feb 6

It's a slow day in the small town of Pumphandle and the streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody is living on credit. A tourist visiting the area drives through town, stops at the motel, and lays a $100 bill on the desk saying he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs to pick one for the night.

As soon as he walks upstairs, the motel owner grabs the bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher. The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to retire his debt to the pig farmer. The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off to pay his bill to his supplier, the Co-op. The guy at the Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute. The hooker rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill with the hotel Owner. The hotel proprietor then places the $100 back on the counter so the traveler will not suspect anything.

Finally, the traveler comes down the stairs, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, picks up the $100 bill and leaves. No one produced anything. No one earned anything. However, the whole town now thinks they are out of debt and there is a false atmosphere of optimism and glee. And that, my friends, is how a "stimulus package" works!

False oathed Judges exposed in Oregon...Texas got exposed in 1999!

OREGON SUPREME COURT ACKNOWLEDGES FALSE OATHS OF JUDGES

Posted By: X
Date: Friday, 12-Oct-2001 02:03:43
This is from RMNEWS_DAILY_EMAILS:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMNEWS_DAILY_EMAILS/messages/19646

...with additional earlier information at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMNEWS_DAILY_EMAILS/messages/18039

AGENTS: If you have further info on this, involving any State, please add it here.

==========

From: avoiceforchildren@yahoo.com
Date: Thu Oct 11, 2001 8:56 pm
Subject: OREGON SUPREME COURT ACKNOWLEDGES FALSE OATHS OF JUDGES

OREGON SUPREME COURT ACKNOWLEDGES FALSE OATHS OF JUDGES
Oregonian Newspaper, Thursday, October 11, 2001

(Ed Note: Oregon Chief Justice Wallace Carson has now openly
acknowledged that Oregon judges and attorneys have taken false oaths
.......the truth is the great leveler, now is the time for
accountability and recompense for those who have been injured by
actors without authority who have stolen their children and destroyed
their lives without a Constitutional Contract - people in every state
need to investigate their own Constitutions and look at the judges
proper oaths, as well as what was going on around 1910 ..........
this is when the global agenda was entrenched right before WWI , and
the foundations were laid for the corporate socialist system not based
on the Constitution or the authority of the People - we lost our
sovereignty, our allodial titles, our real money backed by gold, and
now the corporate state operates under the false "implied consent"
that it OWNS EVERYTHING........ This is about the REAL PEOPLE and your
REAL RIGHTS and your REAL LAND and REAL MONEY and your CHILDREN and
POSTERITY.

Now when they take a Constitutional Oath, NOW they UPHOLD
CONSTITUTIONAL JUDICIAL DUE PROCESS. The People are the authority,
and it is our DUTY, OBLIGATION and RIGHT to enforce this Lawful
jurisdiction now. These are NOT just words, THIS IS THEIR BOND AND
CONTRACT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL PEOPLE/STATE OF OREGON. WITHOUT IT
THERE IS NO BOND OR CONTRACT AT ALL TO THE PEOPLE.)

Date: Thursday, October 11, 2001 2:46 PM
Subject: Chief justice suggests judges complete oaths
(http://www.oregonlive.com/news/or

Chief justice suggests judges complete oaths
10/11/01

ASHBEL S. GREEN

Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace P. Carson Jr. is suggesting that state judges retake their oaths of office because most of them took an incomplete one.

The Oregon Constitution requires judges to swear to uphold the federal and state constitutions and to discharge their duties faithfully and impartially.

At least 10 years ago, the secretary of state's office started sending out to newly elected judges a version of the oath that did not include the words "and impartially."

"I have absolutely no understanding how that could happen," Carson said.

Carson said Wednesday that he planned to e-mail all 163 circuit
judges, suggesting that they retake the oaths if they previously took the incomplete one. He said he intends to attach the complete version of the oath to the message.

"I'm recommending that they do sign the oath, but it's up to them," he said.

Last week, a litigant raised the oath issue during a hearing before Multnomah Circuit Judge Ellen Rosenblum. She responded by retaking the oath on the spot.

"That's one way to address it," Carson said.

Carson said he also expects to suggest that Court of Appeals judges, Supreme Court justices and circuit judges pro tem retake the oath if they took an incomplete one.

A group of activists has been raising the oath issue since at least the beginning of the year, contending that judges who took incomplete ones are invalid and their rulings void.

Carson became aware of the issue from some of these activists.

Legal experts say the failure to take a complete oath does not make a judge invalid, nor would it be a reason to overturn any decisions. No court has made a ruling on the issue.

Carson said Wednesday that the Supreme Court would take up the
effects, if any, of the incomplete oaths only if the issue is raised during the normal appeals process.

The following articles are the background for this unprecedented
acknowledgement that the courts have been for years under a fraudulent
authority...... WE THE PEOPLE HAVE MOVED THE STATE TOWARDS
ACCOUNTABILITY - NOW WE MUST HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE - VOID THEIR
UNLAWFUL DECISIONS, AND FORCE A RESTORED CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION
AND JUDICIAL DUE PROCESS - THE OATH IS ONLY A FACADE UNLESS THEY
ACTUALLY RESTORE OUR ABILITY TO EXCERCISE OUR INHERENT RIGHTS AND
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN A COURT.

**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************

IT IS OPENED NOW, AND THEY ARE GOING TO ANSWER.... NOTICE THERE IS NO
REBUTTAL AT ALL - NO FACTUAL DISPUTE - JUST LIIKE IN COURT - THEY LOSE
!!! UNDISPUTED FACTS BECOME LEGAL FACT AND NOW IT IS FACT THAT THE
JUDGES ARE UNDER FALSE OATHS IN OREGON - THEY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE IS
LIKE NIGHT AND DAY - THE WORDS ARE MEAN JURISDICTIONS....ONE WHERE YOU
HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND ONE WHERE YOU ARE A CORPORATE COMMODITY
FOR THE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING STREAMS.......READ ON.... and by the
way, there are more words missing from the oath than "impartially" -
also "said state" which is WHO the judge is supposed to contract to,
impartially..... notice that there is NO REBUTTAL and you better
believe that this nullifies every thing these imposters have signed.

They have NO defense to this, as seen in the article, the Bars
response is "we can ignore it", just like there is NO ANSWER for the
people being destroyed by these unjust attorneys pretending to be
"judges" having no contract with the People...... read on..... this
breaks open the whole LIE that has been perpetrated on us for many
years, and it is up to SOVEREIGNS TO MAKE SURE THIS DOES NOT GO
IGNORED... IT IS TIME FOR ACCOUNTABILIITY........

-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy H.
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;@molalla.net

Date: Saturday, October 06, 2001 7:35 AM
Subject: $$ HEADS UP OREGON! JUDICIAL OATHS! AP NEWS! $$

CONGRATULATIONS OREGON!!!!!! FROM THE ASSOCIATED
PRESS NEWSWIRE!!

http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.c
gi?o00
04_BC_OR--TroublesomeOath&&news&ornews

Missing phrase in judicial oath could prove troublesome
The Associated Press
10/6/01 3:04 AM

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- decade-old error in the wording of the state's
judicial oath could render thousands of rulings by Oregon's 163 judges
null and void, some legal activists contend.

The Oregon Constitution requires that before judges assume their
duties, they must swear to support the federal and state constitutions
and to "faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of a judge
...."

At least 10 years ago, the words "and impartially" vanished from the
copy of the oath judges get from the secretary of state's office after
they are elected.

The apparent oversight went unnoticed until earlier this year, when it
came to the attention of some activists who challenge the legitimacy of
a range of judicial decisions.

This week, Multnomah County Circuit Judge Ellen F. Rosenblum took an
updated oath during a Portland hearing after a lawyer challenged her
ability to preside over the case because she had taken the shorter
oath.

The attorney who challenged Rosenblum, Roger G. Weidner, was the
Reform Party's 1998 candidate for governor. During his campaign, he
said he would battle judicial corruption.

Milton E. Mitchek of Durkee, near Baker City, has distributed a
pamphlet saying his research revealed the discrepancy in the oaths.

"A rebel Oregon Judge who does not take and uphold Oregon's required
oath is committing treason against the Oregon Constitution, the Law of
the Land and the People," his pamphlet says.

Legal experts disagree with the activists about the implications of
the missing phrase.

"Nothing in the constitutional provision ... indicates that a failure
to include one of the words would have that effect," said Roy Pulvers,
a former staff attorney for the Oregon Supreme Court.

John Lindback, director of the Oregon Elections Division, said he did
not know how the incomplete oath got sent out. He said it was up to
court officials to decide what to do.

Chief Justice Wallace P. Carson Jr. of the Oregon Supreme Court said
he is aware of the issue but had not decided Friday what -- if anything
-- should be done.

Pulvers and other experts say the discrepancy is not legally
significant and would not be grounds to overturn any of the thousands
of rulings made by judges who had not taken the complete oath.

(Ed. note: PLEEEEEEASE !!! a typographical error???? Court and Law
are courts of EVIDENCE and an I is an I and a t is a t...... that is
the standard held against Sovereigns, but note the responses when it is
bar members who have been caught, "We can ignore it" and "it is not
important", "not legally signifaicant", . the comments of the legal
staff of the Supreme Court",

Please KNOW that the false oath, and the fact that Rosenblum took her
llawfull oath proves it is fraud . .....she was in court, under oath,
on the Record, and could have said aanything else "you are mistaken"
or "this is the real case" or, as one judge in Josephine County told
Chris Youngblood, "I'm sure there is another one you just didn't find
it".........THIS IS OVER NOW IN OREGON......CHECK IN YOUR OWN STATES -
EVERY STATE NOW IS UNDER THIS CORPORATE SYSTEM - IT IS CALLED JUSTICE
2020...... iIT IS UP TO ALL OF US TO BRING FORTH REMEDY IN THIS AND
FORCE ACCOUNTABILITY - DO NOT LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS.....

AT THIS TIME THE BAR AND RON WYDEN ARE PASSING "RULES" TO LET BAR
MEMBERS "LIE, CHEAT, STEAL AND MISREPRESENT" AND NOT CALL IT
CRIMINAL........ IT IS TIME FOR THE PEOPLE TO SAY ENOUGH OF THIS......
SIGN MEASURE #1 AND STOP THIS STATUTORY FRAUD NOW....... OUR CHILDREN
AND RIGHTS ARE ON THE LINE TODAY, AND OUR FUTURE IS IN DANGER IF THIS
IS NOT CORRECTED NOW....... INSIST CARSON FORCES ALL OREGON JUDGES TO
TAKE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL OATH

THE MAIN POINT THE ARTICLE LEAVES OUT INTENTIONALLY IS THAT THE
ORIGINAL OATH IS A DIFFERENT JURISDICTION THAN THE ONE THEY ARE UNDER
NOW, AND THEY KNOW IT.....THEY CAN NO LONGER UPHOLD THEIR STATUTORY
FRAUD AND CORPORATE NON CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS IN A COURT OF
CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION. DO NOT ACCEPT THEIR LIES, AND THEY HAVE
TO SHOW CAUSE TO SUPPORT THEIR NONSENSE...... THEY DO THIS ALL THE TIME
IN COURT AND NO ONE STOPS THE BULLIES ......

THE OATH IS FRAUD, UNDER THE RULES OF EVIDENCE IF IT IS NOT THE SAME
IT IS NOT THE SAME, AND THE PARTICULAR WORDS LEFT OUT ARE NOT AT ALL BY
CHANCE WHEN YOU LEARN ABOUT THE WAY THIS CAME IN THROUGH THE AMENDED
VII FRAUD IN 1910 THAT OPENED THE WAY FOR THE CORPORATE COURTS TO COME
IN. IT IS ALL DECEPTION. IT IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS WORDS ON A PAGE -
EVERY WORD MEANS LAW AND YOUR RIGHTS.... JUST TRY TO GO INTO COURT AND
PLEAD FOR YOURSELF THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT IT SAYS ON THE COURT
PAPERS - YOU ARE INGORED OR DISMISSED..

THE WHOLE BAR DECEPTION IS LIKE HUMPTY DUMPTY - EGGHEADS WHO SAY
'THE WORDS MEAN WHAT I SAY THEY MEAN' AGAINST PEOPLE, FOR THE STATE, IN
EVERY COURT RIGHT NOW..... HUMPTY DUMPTY IS NOW ON THE GROUND A PUTRID
PUDDLE OF SLIME IN THE LIGHT OF THE TRUTH AND PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.....

ALL THE KINGS HORSES AND ALL THE KINGS MEN WILL NOT PUT HIM BACK
TOGETHER THIS TIME.

JUDGE ROSENBLUM TAKES CONSTITUTIONAL OATH IN KETTLEBERG CASE IN
PORTLAND

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF WITH "VULTURES" EXPOSE' OF FALSE OATH OF JUDGES
ENTERED INTO RECORD OF JUDGE COON IN CHRISTINES CASE IN JOSEPHINE
COUNTY

Judge Coon enters Amicus Curiae Brief into Record with exhibits of
judicial fraud; UNDISPUTED..... Judge Rosenblum allows Racketeering
case brought by Roger Weidner to proceed, affirmation of criminal
charges against judges, attorneys for theft and conversion of hundred
million dollar estate of Janette Kent.

Judges in Oregon are under false oaths since l998; and a changed oath
since l910. (go to www.avoiceforchildren.com to download the expose'
(long download!) with exhibits written by researcher and court
advocate Milt Mitcheck, or write to the addresses at the end for the
articles on this that went out on September 5, 2001)

Multnomah County - October 2, 2001 - State attorneys met in the
Multnomah County Courthouse of Judge Ellen F Rosenblum on October 2,
2001, on a motion to dismiss a Racketeering Complaint brought against
numerous judges and attorneys for criminal acts in the theft and
conversion of the Estate of Don Kettleberg, that was willed to Janette
Kent thirteen years ago. Weidner, a former prosecuting attorney, has
for more than ten years filed into the courts to force the state to
turn over the estate to Kent, as the courts ordered the state to do
ten years ago.

The state attorneys brought a motion to dismiss on a "Rule 21", the
arbitrary, biased and routinely used method to dismiss the Complaints
from abused Citizens when they charge public officials or bar members
criminally. As the hearing began, Weidner told Rosenblum that there
were some problems with the oath she was acting under. Weidner
showed Rosenblum a certified copy of her oath, and the exhibits that
show that the current oath leaves out words from the constitutionally
mandated oath, in particular the words "said" state, and faithfully
and "impartially". (The differences are like night and day in a
court - the word "said" refers to the REAL land, water, air, Sui Juris
Inherent Rights, that only belong to SOVEREIGNS - NOT corporations or
states or groups of any kind - and NOT adherent or bound or bonded or
contracted in any way to administrative rules. This is about HUMAN
RIGHTS AND FAMILY RIGHTS; and to leave out the word "impartially" is
obvious that the judges only swear to "faithfully" uphold THEIR
Amended VII Statutory system, the OVERLAY of codes, ordinances,
statutes and "offences", NOT the Organic Constitution.)

Agreeing that her oath was faulty, exactly as Weidner had charged,
Judge Rosenblum said "sometimes things are inadvertently left out, but
I will take that oath right now !" Rosenblum stood at the Bench,
raised her right hand, and said "normally this would be in front of a
judge, but I am under oath and this is on the Record", and Rosenblum
took the ORIGINAL oath in front of the audience of attorneys and
courtwatchers. By taking an oath to the "said" state of Oregon, this
is the first time since around 1910 that a court has excercised
Original Jurisdiction in the state of Oregon, and the first judge
since that time to swear to IMPARTIALLY uphold the SAID state, the
REAL land, your REAL person and Human Rights. "Said", literally,
"aforementioned", in this case, the Constitutionally Lawful Republic
of Sovereigns in the State of Oregon. Article 1, Section 1, "All
authority inherent in People", Oregon Constitution. (only HUMANS can
excercise inherent rights, not a "corpse" - "corps" - corporations
that are NOT human, cannot sign anything, have no signature or voice,
cannot bear any CLAIM against any Sovereign, cannot bear children or
have parental righs, cannot own property - except in the counterfeit
overlay the bar and legislature has created and in which the bar spins
the people around for their own profit).

Rosenblum told the state attorneys that she was not going to allow
their motion to dismiss. Rosenblum said "No - there are allegations of
criminal conduct and racketeering and conspiracy in Mr. Weidners
Complaint." Rosenblum went on to say that elements of the Racketeering
and Conspiracy were both criminal and civil, and told Weidner to
amend his Complaint to seperate the criminal charges from the civil
charges to make it more clear and certain and bring it back in the
next hearing. Rosenblum has now acknowledged on the record the
evidence of a criminal enterprise of Racketeering involving numerous
attorneys, judges and corporate interests in the Kettleberg Estate
case, affirming the criminal evidence and facts as Janette Kent and
Roger Weidner have testified on the Record for many years.

Rosenblum, by taking an oath to the Original Jurisdiction, lawfully
threw out the state administrative, color of law, statutory,
unconstitutional paperwork that the attorney generals office
generates, always to dismiss without factual dispute or Law.
Rosenblum knew in a court of lawfull Judicial Due Process that it would
be misprison of felony for her to deny the evidence before her and
that the criminal charges could not be ignored. Under the LAWFUL OATH,
only credible evidence comes in and a criminal indictment cannot be
dismissed in an administrative quasi-judicial process, that is in
place at this time under color of Law and their false oaths.

On September 20, 2001, in Josephine County in the court of Judge Coon,
researcher and court advocate Chris Youngblood filed an Amicus Curiae
brief into the case of Brian and Ruth Christine, with the "vultures"
book and the evidence of the judges false oaths. Right now the court
is moving to terminate parental rights on the Christines five
daughters, rolling over the parents Inherent Rights like road kill,
yet have never allowed a trial or conviction against the parents.
The state also has NEVER supported or produced any evidence whatsoever
in a court to substantiate their kidnapping of the Christine children,
unsupported yet printed repeatedly in the newspapers, who work for the
state and money interests too, who have slandered and biased the case
with unsupported, unproven and uninvestigated lies.

The state, acting as though it can "sever" UN A LIEN ABLE parental
rights, is moving without Law in an unconstitutional process without
evidence or judicial due process in that case, as well as EVERY case
against families in Oregon. The Christine's "reposessed" their
children from the state, had them for a few days, and now the state
has again taken them, as well as the newborn in Montana. Ruth
Christine was forced to bear her baby in shackles imprisoned, having
commited no crime nor convicted of any crime, and Baby Abby Rose,
whom the state has already destroyed the maternal human bond of mother
and child, having NEVER convicted either parent of ANY crime! The
Christine's are now in jail in Montana for their brave and selfless
acts to excercise Inherent Rights to protect their family body. They
have put their lives on the line for their children and for every
family in America.

Youngbloods Amicus brief was filed ten minutes before the hearing,
and Judge Coon acknowledged the brief immediately. Coon told the
court to make copies for all adverse parties in the case, and that the
Amicus was now part of the case file in the Christine case. The state
attorneys present, as well as attorneys for the State Offices for
Services to Children and Families, had no rebuttal to the Amicus
brief, outlining the lack of jurisdiction of the adminstrative non
constitutional court, and that the actions against the Christines
have been committed by false judges with no worn oath/contract/bond to
the organic Constitutional State of Oregon. The Amicus and exhibits
prove that the orders and actions previously brought against the
Christines are null and void of Law, and cannot be lawful enforcement.
The brief made clear that the state cannot proceed in the manner it
has been any longer, having no Lawfull Constitutional jurisdiction.

By entering this evidence of false oaths into the Record, and the
facts undisputed by the state became legal fact. The facts in the
Record have to be disputed in every hearing, on both sides, or what
is claimed becomes undisputed fact in the Record. On September 20,
the evidence of the false oaths became fact in the Record. And on
October 2, when Ellen Rosenblum took a Lawful oath, she became the
first judge to do so in nearly a hundred years, restoring a court of
Constitutional Judicial Due Process under the Organic Constitution.

By swearing to uphold "said" state, the statutory overlay is now
burnt away, vaporized, and any judge swearing their lawful oath cannot
support the unconstitional statutory overlay anymore now in Oregon. It
is all in the process. It is difficult for many to understand the
manipulations of this information, without experience in a court.
These are deeply embedded manipulations, intentionally deceptive, and
how the bar has operated in the dark to deceive and control the common
people as they are being exploited and destroyed in administrative
process for profit 'INTEREST' for the corporate state.

Today, Oregon has at least one judge with a Lawful oath to excercise
an Original Jurisdiction, which reestablishes our Soveriegn, Republic
in Oregon, and sets the tone for the rest of the country. Now that
the evidence has been exposed, entered in to Record and affirmed by a
judge, the bridge has reached across between the People, Our Republic
and our Rights, and the door is opened for everyone to Claim their
birthrights and inheritance, Inherent Rights given to you by God and
protected by the Bill of Rights and the Constitutions. We have to
CLAIM our rights to excercise them.

We have to realize now that every order, judgement, trial, fines or
assessments, that have been generated by these actors under false
oaths is NULL AND VOID, including previous judgements of Rosenblum
herself. Also, there is NO JUDGE at this time setting on the Supreme
Court, including Chief Justice Wallace Carson, who have a lawful oath,
as Rosenblum took yesterday. The People have to insist now that their
cases be dismissed as they were not allowed Judicial Due Process in
the courts. This has now been established as FACT now that Rosenblum
has confirmed that the previous oath was false and VOID.

We have to demand that EVERY judge in Oregon takes their Lawfull oath
now, and no longer tolerate statutory fraud or the counterfeit amended
VII statutory judicial system in Oregon. Measure #1 is gathering
signatures now across the state, to repeal the Amendment to the
Constitution in 1910 that "supplanted" the organic Constitution of the
SAID state of Oregon, the Law, the Bond, the Oath and the Contract
with the Sovereigns. TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW TO FIND THIS PETITION,
AND MAKE SURE THEY SIGN IT.....

Please contact Roger Weidner at 503-232-6691 for more information
about the Racketeering case. For information on Measure #1, and how to
help restore Constitutional Government in Oregon, please call
503-845-6734 , or 503-371-8742 , for more information, or contact the
Chief Petitioners through the website www.avoiceforchildren.com, also
e-mail at avoice@mtangel.net).

Also, please mail to: PO Box 132, Mt Angel, Oregon 97362

CIVIL LIABILITY FOR GOVERNMENT WRONGDOING

CIVIL LIABILITY FOR GOVERNMENT WRONGDOING
"It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." (Voltaire)

Suing the government is the second most popular indoor sport in America, and police are often the targets of lawsuits, with over 30,000 civil actions filed against them every year, between 4-8% of them resulting in an unfavorable verdict, where the average jury award is $2 million. This isn't even counting the hundreds of cases settled thru out-of-court settlements, which probably runs in the hundreds of millions and involves about half of all cases filed. It may take up to five years to settle a police liability case.

When police fail to perform their duties, perform them negligently, or abuse their authority, the possibility of civil liability exists. Unlike criminal cases, liability cases are tried in civil court. It's common to name everyone associated with the injury or damage as the defendant (officers, supervisors, agencies, even the government entity) in order to reach the "deep pockets". Chances are the higher-ups will have the ability to pay larger awards either personally or by raising taxes.

There are two (2) ways to sue the police. One, the lawsuit may be filed in state court as a tort law claim. This is the preferred method since torts can only be settled by money awards and the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence, a standard much lower to convict than in a criminal case. Two, the lawsuit may be filed in federal court as a violation of Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 1983. This is referred to as a civil rights claim, and is essentially a charge that someone has had their constitutional rights violated. States cannot be sued in a civil rights claim, but municipalities and sheriffs can be sued if they are (a) acting under color of state law, and (b) violating a specific Amendment right in the Constitution. The standards under federal law are custom or policy, and deliberate indifference, a rather poorly defined concept which is similar to totality of circumstances. Although federal lawsuits can result in money awards, the amount is usually less since the main purpose is to win and get the agency to change the way it operates; i.e., obtain injunctive relief.

STATE (TORT) LIABILITY LAW

There are three types of torts under state law, each with different levels of proof and focusing upon different elements of the injury or damage. Evidence rules, precedent, and judicial discretion play a role in determining what type of tort law will be applied.

STRICT LIABILITY -- In this case, the injury or damage is so severe and it's reasonably certain that the harm could have been foreseen that the law dispenses with the need to prove intent or mental state. The only issue is whether the officer or department should pay the money award, and since officers don't usually have any money, the department almost always pays. (Examples: reckless operation of vehicle; excessive SWAT tactics)

INTENTIONAL TORT -- In this case, the officer's intent must be proven, using a foreseeability test involving whether or not the officer knowingly engaged in behavior that was substantially certain to bring about injury. (Examples: wrongful death; assault; false arrest; false imprisonment)

NEGLIGENCE -- In this case, intent or mental state do not matter. What matters is whether some inadvertent act or failure to act created an unreasonable risk to another member of society. (Examples: speeding resulting in traffic accident; not responding to 911 call) Most states have three levels of negligence: (1) slight or mere (absence of foresight); (2) gross (reckless disregard); and (3) criminal. To be prosecuted under tort law for negligence usually requires at least level 2 since to be prosecuted for mere negligence requires considering foreseeability which would support charging the person with an intentional tort or not.

There are additional details of state tort liability associated with specific types of lawsuits, such as:

Wrongful death -- These are typically cases when the officer thinks a suspect is reaching for a weapon, shoots the suspect, and then no weapon is found on the suspect. Courts have ruled that the totality of circumstances must be looked at, especially the reason why the suspect came into contact with the officer in the first place. Merely alleging that a suspect appeared to be reaching for a weapon is no defense.

Assault & Battery -- A police assault would be if an interrogator threatens to throw a suspect out a second-floor window; a police battery is (paradoxically) defined more loosely as any offensive contact without consent; e.g., a male officer performing an illegal search of a female over her protests.

False arrest -- The unlawful restraint of a person's liberty without their consent; e.g., using the caged area of a patrol car as a holding area, several officers surrounding somebody, or ordering someone to remain at the station could all be interpreted as false arrest.

False imprisonment -- This is different from false arrest in that an officer may have had probable cause to arrest, but later violates certain pretrial rights, such as access to a judge or bondsman.

HOT PURSUITS: This high-liability area typically involves reckless or negligent operation of a motor vehicle. It's also typically a strict liability area, and here are some of the acts used by the courts to infer intent or state of mind: not using flashers & sirens; not considering alternative to chase; using old, beat-up police cars; excessive disregard of traffic control devices; not securing the chase path; not warning the public; using cutoff maneuvers & roadblocks that create the possibility for overreaction; not stopping to assist any innocent injured bystanders. The duties are threefold: To warn & protect; To secure the scene; To render assistance.

FEDERAL LIABILITY LAW

Two elements have to be present simultaneously under federal liability law. If a person loses in federal court, they still have recourse under state law.

ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW -- This means that the behavior of officers not related to employment are not actionable. It does not mean that off-duty officers cannot be sued. An officer moonlighting in a security job can be held liable since they are acting under color of law in performing a police function. And, it sounds like a contradiction, but police behavior that is clearly illegal and violates departmental procedure, like beating up a citizen, is regarded by the court as acting under color of law.

VIOLATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT -- These involve whatever the court believes to be specifically prohibited conduct regarding freedom of religion, speech, press, or assembly (1st Amendment), freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (4th Amendment), freedom from double jeopardy and self-incrimination (5th Amendment), rights to a speedy, public, impartial jury trial, and to be informed of the charges, confront and compel witnesses, and to have assistance of counsel (6th Amendment); freedom from excessive bail, fines, and cruel and unusual punishments (8th Amendment); and freedom from deprivations of life, liberty, or property without due process (14th Amendment).

The leading case in police department liability under federal law is Monell v. Dept. of Social Services (1978). Under this ruling, it must be shown that the department adopted or promulgated (however informal) a "custom" or policy that was the driving force behind the officer's violation of constitutional rights. In essence, this is the doctrine of respondeat superior, since a policymaker (or "custommaker") has to be found to declare the department liable. A "pattern" of constitutional violations and an awareness of them by high-ranking officials must be demonstrated. However, there is precedent holding departments accountable for one single act as fulfilling "pattern" requirement.

Examples of gross negligence or accumulations of mere negligence constitute deliberate indifference. This standard is usually satisfied by looking at whether or not the agency administration engaged in supervisory negligence. Virtually every decision a police administrator makes subjects them to possible liability. The following are examples of supervisory negligence:

Negligent hiring -- hiring persons unfit for police work; not conducting psychological exams; not conducting full background checks

Negligent supervision -- inadequate monitoring of employee performance; failure to reprimand when appropriate; tolerating sloppy police work; hearing rumors & not acting; being new to supervisor job

Negligent retention -- keeping employees on the job or promoting them on the basis of favoritism or friendship when they clearly should have been severely disciplined, demoted, or dismissed

Failure to train -- inadequately preparing employees to perform their duties; minimal or too easy academy training; little or no in-service training; no educational tuition reimbursement

Negligent entrustment -- inadequately preparing employees prior to entrusting them with responsibilities; a synergistic combination of failure to train and negligent supervision

Negligent assignment -- assigning known problem employees to critical or inappropriate duties; reckless drivers to patrol; racist officers to ghetto areas; sexist officers with a female partner

Failure to direct -- not giving officers clear, articulated guidance in how to perform their duties; not having policies and procedures; having officers "sign off" on same without understanding them

Failure to discipline -- not having an effective discipline process; not following progressive discipline principles

Failure to investigate -- also a liability of officers; with supervisors, it's not having an effective Internal Affairs unit, inspections or integrity checks, a difficult (for citizens) complaint process, or a difficult (for employees) grievance process

Failure to protect -- also a liability of officers and jail managers; it's not inspecting safety conditions; allowing victims or witnesses to come in contact with suspects; (protection of public is an individual liability addressed with failure to direct for supervisors or writ of mandamus)

Failure to treat -- also a liability of officers and jail manager; not providing first aid, ambulance service, or counseling (given the foreseeability of suicide)

Negligent classification -- a jail manager liability; throwing adults in with children, or dangerous inmates in with non-dangerous ones

DEFENSES TO LIABILITY

Contributory negligence -- this is where the government shows that the plaintiff was also negligent, and contributed to their own injury or damage. No money award is granted if this defense is successful.

Comparative negligence -- this is when the court decides on a percentage split (say 60-40) in terms of who is negligent. This defense tends to mitigate, or reduce the size of the money award.

Assumption of risk -- this is when the court decides that the suspect engaged in behaviors (e.g., fleeing from police) that assumed the risk of damages or injuries, and cannot expect to sue the police to recover.

Absolute Immunity -- This is a Section 1983 lawsuit defense that is limited to participation in the judicial process; i.e., testifying in court. If a police officer commits perjury on the stand, they cannot be threatened with civil liability, only the criminal offense of perjury. The courts reason that it's difficult enough to get people to testify without the threat of civil liability.

Qualified Immunity -- This is a Section 1983 lawsuit defense covering duties of a discretionary nature, such as when a police administrator decides to increase or decrease the number of patrols for drunk drivers. A motorist hit by a drunk driver charging that the department did not have enough patrol cars out protecting her would not win her lawsuit.

Probable Cause -- This is the standard defense to false arrest charges.

Good Faith -- This covers a wide range of behaviors, even unconstitutional ones, if the officer is executing a warrant believing in good faith that the warrant was valid, but it later turns out the warrant was defective or invalid.

College Education -- When a department has a 4-year college degree standard for all its employees, this protects somewhat against various forms of supervisory negligence, such as charges relating to the failure to supervise, direct, train, or entrust, since it can reasonably be expected that college educated officers are better prepared to understand a broader range of motivation and control issues, more likely to read and understand policy manuals, temper police powers with good judgment or democratic values, and have a more professional orientation.

INTERNET RESOURCES
Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc.
AELE: Case Law Library
The Liability Reporter
Police Liability Assessment Guide
Police Liability Concerning Human Rights

PRINTED RESOURCES
Carter, D. & A. Sapp (1990). Higher Education as a Policy Alternative to Reduce Police Liability. Police Liability Review 2: 1-2.
Del Carmen, R. (1991). Civil Liabilities in American Policing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kappeler, V. (1993). Critical Issues in Police Civil Liability. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Last updated: 07/16/04
Syllabus for JUS 205
Instructor Home Page

Yahuwah has no respect for persons, natural or not!! Neither does the Taxman

Opinion: Chilliwack proponent of 'natural person' theory convicted of counselling fraud
A+
By David Baines, Vancouver Sun? January 19, 2012

Chilliwack's Russell Porisky has been convicted of counselling people to evade taxes through his school, Paradigm Education Group.

B.C. Supreme Court judge Elliott Myers also convicted Porisky and his common-law wife of failing to report a total of $1,127,185 of income derived from the school during the five-year period ending December 2008, thereby evading $225,222 in income tax.

The judge further convicted Porisky of failing to remit $66,133 in goods and services taxes that he should have collected on the sale of Paradigm courses and materials.

The trial was held in November and December. The Crown was represented by Bruce Harper, while Porisky and Gould represented themselves.

Judge Myers handed down his 36-page decision on Wednesday morning. For the Minister of National Revenue, it represents a major victory.

For years, Porisky has been promoting his "natural person" theory, which holds that a per-son can arrange his or her business affairs to receive income as a "natural person" rather than as a taxpayer, thereby avoiding income taxes.

The only problem is, the courts have consistently rejected this argument. More than a dozen people, including some of Porisky's former students, have been convicted of tax evasion, and some have been sentenced to jail terms.

By getting Porisky convicted of counselling people to evade tax through the natural person theory, the federal government has effectively cut off the head of the snake.

In his decision, Judge Myers noted that Porisky worked in the construction industry, then in the early 1990s began to study the taxation system.

By 2001, he had dedicated him-self to studying and propagating his theories. He founded the Paradigm Education Group to "create a structure that everyone could work together in to save the country from a foreign parasite" - the international bankers who were supposedly responsible for the income tax system.

To promote his natural per-son theory, he wrote books and created instructional DVDs, and Paradigm sold them through its website, www.naturalperson. com.

He also conducted seminars, for which he charged a fee, and he qualified "educators" to teach Paradigm materials and assist people who wanted to set them-selves up as natural persons.

Gould, who has lived with Porisky since 1998, assisted in administrative matters and attended his seminars. Money generated by Paradigm was deposited into four bank accounts, two of which were in their joint names.

Paradigm proved to be a very popular and lucrative business. A Canada Revenue Agency investigator testified that a total of $1,843,298 was deposited into Porisky's and Gould's bank accounts during the relevant period. After deducting expenses, he estimated net business income to be $1,127,185, which he allocated evenly between the two accused.

While the profitability of the venture was clear, its underlying logic was not:

"Mr. Porisky's theory not only does not bear any legal logic but it also fails to accord with common sense. It is a failed attempt at word magic and has no validity," Judge Myers wrote in his decision.

He said the "absurdity" of Porisky's distinction between a natural person and a non-natural person was illustrated during the trial when he was asked whether he wanted to give any evidence.

"If I make the decision and I go in that box, which person, in the eyes of the law, am I?" he asked the judge.

"Am I Russell Anthony Porisky in my inherent personality as a natural person, or am I a sovereign-granted personality?"

"You're Mr. Porisky," the judge replied.

"That's fairly misleading because that's not clear enough for me," Porisky responded.

At that point, the judge tried to reduce the question to its simplest form:

"Let's assume you get into the stand and the Crown asks you, 'What did you have for break-fast today?' Would it make a difference as to what capacity you were in?"

"For me, it would, your honour, yes."

The judge also noted that, when Porisky was asked to confirm the identity of a Paradigm educator in the public gallery, he said it depended in what capacity the Crown was asking about.

The judge found that Porisky was well aware of previous court decisions rejecting the natural person theory, and was therefore "wilfully blind" in utilizing and promoting his views to others.

"It is clear to me that Mr. Porisky intended that Paradigm students follow his teachings by arranging their affairs as natural persons and avoid paying income tax."

The judge noted that Paradigm's books and DVDs contained a disclaimer that the information in them "should in no way be construed as either legal or financial advice," and that readers should consult a competent expert to determine its veracity before utilizing it.

But he said these caveats were "lost in a sea of material that [Paradigm] presented with 100-per-cent certainty," and it was clear he was "encouraging the fraud of income tax avoidance."

Judge Myers will consider an appropriate sentence at a later date. Based on his income tax evasion conviction alone, it is highly likely that Porisky, at least, will be handed a jail sentence. The counselling conviction can only lengthen that term.

dbaines@vancouversun.com

Blog: vancouversun.com/baines

TRUE US HISTORY

From AbundantHope.net
TRUE US HISTORY
Man or Other Animals: US Laws Define Humans to be Animals - Livestock on the Global Plantation
By Al Adask with comments by Donna & Ron
Dec 31, 2011 - 2:28:25 AM

Man or Other Animals: US Laws Define Humans to be Animals - Livestock on the Global Plantation

On 27/12/11, in the third hour of 'The Power Hour' radio talk show program the host, Joyce Riley, interviewed Al Adask. See: http://archives2011.gcnlive.com/Arch...ur/1003113.mp3 the first few minutes of the program deal with a typically smooth talking Talmudic author who, I assume from what he says, has written a book demonising Muslims. Feel free to ignore that.


Mr. Adask has brilliantly exposed the truth about how any unlawful government legislated "laws" in the US have defined humans as mere animals so that they can treat them accordingly.

Donna visited Al Adask's blog at Adask.wordpress.com which is shared with you below. This information is so interesting and relevant that many may wish to research these articles and legal resources for themselves. At the end of the articles listed below Al Adask makes a personal statement. He is a man who stands in his own sovereignty.

Quoting Al Adask from his blog:

"The subject of the interview will be the “man or other animals” laws whereby the government expressly defines the American people to be “animals” rather than men and women made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-28) and endowed by their Creator with God-given, unalienable Rights (“Declaration of Independence”). This definition violates fundamental principles of the Bible and Declaration of Independence and constitutes an act of genocide against the American people.

I know these definitions exist in Texas and federal law, as well as five other States that I’ve investigated. I presume these “man or other animals” laws exist in all 50 States. I’ve had reports from England and Australia that their definitions of drugs also declared man to be an “animal”. It is likely that the presumption that mankind are nothing but “animals” is a cornerstone principle for big government and the New World Order.

The concept of “man or other animals” laws is hard to follow over the radio. Therefore, so, as a convenience for today’s radio audience, I am publishing several links on this blog entry to the fundamental laws and documents I’ll discuss during the interview.

If the listeners want to verify some of what I’ll be saying, they’ll be able to so with relative ease from this single blog entry and list of articles and legal resources.

1. This first link is to a copy of the original paperwork (a freedom of religion defense) that I used when the Texas Attorney General sued me and six others for the “manufacture and distribution of a a controlled substance” (colloidal silver). Each defendant was threatened with fines of $25,000/day ($9 million/year). After investing 6 years and nearly $500,000 in the pre-trial investigation and hearings in our case, the Texas simply ceased all prosecution efforts. I believe the reason is that the case was dropped is that the “man or other animals” insight is so politically explosive that the gov-co couldn’t risk taking it to court. I.e., the “war on drugs” started by President Nixon in A.D. 1971 is based on a definition of the word “drug” that presumes the people to be animals. The war on drugs laid the foundation for much of the modern police state. The police state gave us the prison-industrial complex. Similarly, the pharmaceutical industry, the medical establishment , and the FDA’sregulation of raw milk and vitamins are all based in large measure on a definition of “drug” that presume the people to be “animals”. All of these institutions (and billions of dollars) are based on a definition of “drug” that can’t withstand a challenge based on freedom or religion. If the “man or other animals” definitions are overturned in court, these various institutions will be badly debilitated and perhaps destroyed. The Texas Attorney General wasn’t willing to take that risk, so he dropped the case. http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/1...her-animals-1/

2. This second link explains why the “man or other animals” laws are acts of genocide perpetrated by the federal government against the American people. http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/1...her-animals-3/

3. This third link is to an article published at GenocideWatch.org entitled the “8 Stages of Genocide”. Note that “Stage 3″ in this article is “dehumanization” and includes declaring other people to be insects, vermin or “animals“: http://genocidewatch.org/aboutgenoci...fgenocide.html

[Ron: Please note that Al Adask inappropriately and wrongly further publishes the Talmudic calumny that the German nation exterminated Jews during WWII. IT DIDN'T! And anyone concerned about human rights, as he is, should be scrupulously careful about Blood Libelling the German nation with throw-a- way lines. In fact, the US and its British and Soviet allies genocided some 13 million Germans at the end of WWII and in the five years thereafter. Moreover, NO Jews were holocausted by the German nation and the Red Cross reported that only 271 304 Jews died in German concentration WORK camps during WWII - most of them from disease, malnutrition and (at the end of the war) starvation due to Anglo-US bombing of Germany . See eg: OFFICIAL RECORDS FROM INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS PROVE "HOLOCAUST" WAS A FRAUD – Repost. See: http://just-another-inside-job.blogspot.com/2007/06/official-records-from-international-red.html ].


4. Here’s a link to the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act. See Section 6 wherein the government defines the words “food” and “drugs” to apply to “man or other animals” and thus defines man to be an “animal”. This the earliest instance we’ve found of government declaring the American people to be “animals”. For over a century, your government has regarded you, your spouse, children, parents and friends to be “animals”. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22116/

5. Here’s a link to Title 7 (Agriculture) of the United States Code, (7 U.S.C. Section 136(d)) which defines man to be an “animal”. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/7/6/II/136

6. 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1) Federal definition of “drugs” defines man to be an animal: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/21/9/II/321

7. Texas Health & Safety Code definition of “drugs” at 431.002(14) defines man to be an animal at: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...31.htm#431.002 .

8. For an assortment of other articles I’ve published on this blog that touch on the “man or other animals” laws, see: http://adask.wordpress.com/category/...other-animals/
Share this:
End of Quoting.

About Al Adask
I am a man made in our Father YHWH ha Elohiym's image (Genesis 1:26-28) and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights ("The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America"; July 4th, A.D. 1776). I am one of the People of The State of Texas. My articles are written and published within the venue of The County of Dallas, located within The State of Texas--a member-State of the perpetual Union styled "The United States of America".
Posted by Al Adask on October 3, 2011 in "Man or Other Animals"

The Truth about Hair and why original men and women would keep their Hair Long

United Truth Seekers
Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:32 CDT

© Black Elk
This information about hair has been hidden from the public since the Viet Nam War .

Our culture leads people to believe that hair style is a matter of personal preference, that hair style is a matter of fashion and/or convenience, and that how people wear their hair is simply a cosmetic issue. Back in the Vietnam war however, an entirely different picture emerged, one that has been carefully covered up and hidden from public view.

In the early nineties, Sally [name changed to protect privacy] was married to a licensed psychologist who worked at a VA Medical hospital. He worked with combat veterans with PTSD, post traumatic stress disorder. Most of them had served in Vietnam.

Sally said, "I remember clearly an evening when my husband came back to our apartment on Doctor's Circle carrying a thick official looking folder in his hands. Inside were hundreds of pages of certain studies commissioned by the government. He was in shock from the contents. What he read in those documents completely changed his life. From that moment on my conservative middle of the road husband grew his hair and beard and never cut them again. What is more, the VA Medical center let him do it, and other very conservative men in the staff followed his example.

As I read the documents, I learned why. It seems that during the Vietnam War special forces in the war department had sent undercover experts to comb American Indian Reservations looking for talented scouts, for tough young men trained to move stealthily through rough terrain. They were especially looking for men with outstanding, almost supernatural, tracking abilities. Before being approached, these carefully selected men were extensively documented as experts in tracking and survival.

With the usual enticements, the well proven smooth phrases used to enroll new recruits, some of these Indian trackers were then enlisted. Once enlisted, an amazing thing happened. Whatever talents and skills they had possessed on the reservation seemed to mysteriously disappear, as recruit after recruit failed to perform as expected in the field.

Serious causalities and failures of performance led the government to contract expensive testing of these recruits, and this is what was found.

When questioned about their failure to perform as expected, the older recruits replied consistently that when they received their required military haircuts, they could no longer 'sense' the enemy, they could no longer access a 'sixth sense', their 'intuition' no longer was reliable, they couldn't 'read' subtle signs as well or access subtle extrasensory information.

So the testing institute recruited more Indian trackers, let them keep their long hair, and tested them in multiple areas. Then they would pair two men together who had received the same scores on all the tests. They would let one man in the pair keep his hair long, and gave the other man a military haircut. Then the two men retook the tests.

Time after time the man with long hair kept making high scores. Time after time, the man with the short hair failed the tests in which he had previously scored high scores.

Here is a Typical Test:

The recruit is sleeping out in the woods. An armed 'enemy' approaches the sleeping man. The long haired man is awakened out of his sleep by a strong sense of danger and gets away long before the enemy is close, long before any sounds from the approaching enemy are audible.

In another version of this test the long haired man senses an approach and somehow intuits that the enemy will perform a physical attack. He follows his 'sixth sense' and stays still, pretending to be sleeping, but quickly grabs the attacker and 'kills' him as the attacker reaches down to strangle him.

This same man, after having passed these and other tests, then received a military haircut and consistently failed these tests, and many other tests that he had previously passed.

So the document recommended that all Indian trackers be exempt from military haircuts. In fact, it required that trackers keep their hair long."

Comment:

The mammalian body has evolved over millions of years. Survival skills of human and animal at times seem almost supernatural. Science is constantly coming up with more discoveries about the amazing abilities of man and animal to survive. Each part of the body has highly sensitive work to perform for the survival and well being of the body as a whole.The body has a reason for every part of itself.

Hair is an extension of the nervous system, it can be correctly seen as exteriorized nerves, a type of highly evolved 'feelers' or 'antennae' that transmit vast amounts of important information to the brain stem, the limbic system, and the neocortex.

Not only does hair in people, including facial hair in men, provide an information highway reaching the brain, hair also emits energy, the electromagnetic energy emitted by the brain into the outer environment. This has been seen in Kirlian photography when a person is photographed with long hair and then rephotographed after the hair is cut.

When hair is cut, receiving and sending transmissions to and from the environment are greatly hampered. This results in numbing-out .

Cutting of hair is a contributing factor to unawareness of environmental distress in local ecosystems. It is also a contributing factor to insensitivity in relationships of all kinds. It contributes to sexual frustration.

Conclusion:

In searching for solutions for the distress in our world, it may be time for us to consider that many of our most basic assumptions about reality are in error. It may be that a major part of the solution is looking at us in the face each morning when we see ourselves in the mirror.

The story of Sampson and Delilah in the Bible has a lot of encoded truth to tell us. When Delilah cut Sampson's hair, the once undefeatable Sampson was defeated.

Reported by C. Young

The origin of the term Jew

"Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an "Israelite" or a "Hebrew." The first Hebrews may not have been Jews at all," The Jewish Almanac (1980)
Many people suffer under the misapprehension that Jesus was a "Jew," moreover, that he was "King of the Jews." Thus, by inference, that the "Jews" were the "Chosen People" of the Holy Bible and so ancient possessors and modern inheritors of the Bible Covenants gifted by Yahweh to their forebears Abraham, Jacob and Judah. However, this is not the case. In fact, during Christ's Mission and Passion no such people existed called "Jews" nor indeed did the word "Jew." In short: Jesus was NOT a "Jew" nor was he "King of the Jews."

In fact, Jesus is referred as a "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century; in the revised 18th century English language editions of the 14th century first English translations of the New Testament. The etymology of the word "Jew" is quit clear. Although "Jew" is a modern conception its roots lie in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. That is, the modern English word "Jew" is the 18th century contraction and corruption of the 4th century Latin "Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition and derived from the Greek word "Ioudaios." The evolution of this can easily be seen in the extant manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century, which illustrate not only the origin of the word "Jew" found in the Latin word "Iudaeus" but also its current use in the English language. Littered throughout these manuscripts are the many earlier English equivalents used by various chroniclers between the 4th and the 18th century. Thus, from the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" the evolution of these English forms is: "Gyu," "Giu," "Iu," "Iuu," "Iuw," "Ieuu," "Ieuy," "Iwe," "Iow," "Iewe," "Ieue," "Iue," "Ive," "Iew," and then, finally, the 18th century, "Jew." Similarly, the evolution of the English equivalents for "Jews" is: "Giwis," "Giws," "Gyues," "Gywes," "Giwes," "Geus," "Iuys," "Iows," "Iouis," "Iews," and then, finally, in the 18th century, "Jews."

For example: two of the best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition and both contain the word word "Jew." Yet, when the English language version of the Rheims (Douai) New Testament was first printed in 1582 the word "Jew" did NOT appear in it. Similarly the King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English (begun in 1604) and first published in 1611, here too the word "Jew" did NOT appear. That is, the word "Jew" first appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions. The combination of the Protestant Reformation, the publication of the revised English language 18th century editions and the printing press (allowing unlimited quantities of the New Testament to be printed) meant the wide distribution of these English language Bibles throughout the English speaking world. That is, among people who had never possessed a copy of the New Testament in any language but who were now in possession of one in their native tongue. And, although these 18th century editions first introduced the word "Jew" to the English language the word as it was used in these has since continued in use in all the editions of the New Testament in the English language.

Numerous copies of these revised 18th century English editions ( especially the Rheims (Douai) and the King James translations of the New Testament) were distributed to the clergy and the laity throughout the English speaking world. And so, the new readers of these 18th century editions were introduced to a new word both to them and the English language, the word "Jew." For, these readers did not know the history of the origin of the English word "Jew" and accepted it as the legitimate modern form of the ancient Greek "Ioudaios" and the Latin "Iudaeus." Thus, these new readers did not understand or care to question the meaning and use of the word "Jew" since it was a new English word to them. Consequently, the use of the word "Jew" was not only stabilised by these 18th century editions but also its anachronistic application to people and places fully established.

The original chroniclers used the Greek "Ioudaios" to denote people who lived in Judaea, that is, in English, for "Judaeans." Thus: "Ioudaia" in Greek is, in English, "Judaea" ( or "Judea") while "Ioudaios" in Greek is, in English, "Judaeans" (or "Judeans") Moreover, when the word "Jew" was first introduced by the redactors into the English language in the 18th century they intended its one and only application was to denote "Judaeans" (or "Judeans"). That is, they deemed them cognates (conveying identical implications, inferences and innuendoes) and so interchangeable. Thus, they meant that it makes no difference which of these two words is used when referring to the inhabitants of Judaea during the time of Christ's Mission. However, since this time the implications, inferences, and innuendoes conveyed by these two words have radically changed and are now as different as black is from white. In short: today, the word "Jew" is never regarded as a synonym for "Judaean" (or "Judean") nor is "Judaean" regarded as a synonym for "Jew." The word has taken on a far different meaning, one wholly divorced from the original conception of the 18th century redactors.

This is its "secondary meaning" that has been carefully nurtured among the English speaking peoples of the world by a secret power intent upon exploiting its ancient power of association. This so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" has been assiduously cultivated during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries and bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word "Jew." It has succeeded to such a degree, that now most people in the English-speaking world can not comprehend the true nature of the word "Jew," its literal sense, and do not regard a "Jew" as a "Judaean." That is, understand the correct and only meaning of the word known to the 18th century redactors of the New Testament. In short: the word "Jew" in modern usage is a misrepresentation. The etymology of the word "Jew," first used in the revised 18th century English language editions of the New Testament, is uncomplicated: the original Greek word "Ioudaios" was derived from the Aramaic "Jehudhai," which referred to Judaeans, the residents of the Babylonian province of Judaea, and not as a reference to members of the tribe of Judah. That is, the modern English word "Jew" is a transliteration of an abbreviation or slang word coined by Babylonian conquerors for the enslaved Judaeans without any due regard to the race or religion of the captives. This indiscriminate use of the word "Jew" to refer to the diverse mass of races and religions then resident in Judaea is the application of an incorrect, modern colloquial idiom without regard or recognition of the true and Biblical meaning of the original words.

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto Him shall the gathering of the people be." (Gen. 49:10)
The meaning of the word "Jew" in the Bible is not the same as the commonly held modern view. In the Bible the word "Jew" is meant to refer to a resident of the land of Judaea. Moreover, it is a reference regardless of tribe, race or religion. Anyone who was an inhabitant of Judaea was a "Jew" and need not be a member of the tribe of Judah (Judahite) or one who followed the Judaic religion. Thus, "Jews" and "Jewry" in the Bible not only refer Judah (i.e. Jehudah or Juttah) but also a part of (or place in) Palestine and any other peoples who dwelt there. In the modern, colloquial idiom "Jews" are descendants of Judah while in the Bible it means anyone dwelling in Judaea regardless of lineage or ethnicity. Now, Judah was the largest and the most influential of the Twelve Tribes of Israel with the governing right whose sons where to provide the rightful kings of Israel. That is, they were the inheritors of the Bible Covenants but especially the Davidic Covenant. In short; the Chosen People of Yahweh. However, Jacob prophesied (Gen. 49:10) the tribe would only maintain its pre-eminence until "Shiloh," came who would then assume headship and receive the allegiance of true spiritual Israel as Isaiah 9:6-7 foretold. That is, when the Messiah arrived. This is why Jesus' lineage was established in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 to David, Judah, Jacob and Abraham. So that when He took the sceptre from Judah all who receive Him as Messiah give Him their allegiance.

At the time of Christ's Mission, in the days of His flesh, few of the citizens of Judaea were Judahites, that is, direct descendants of Judah and so the "Chosen People"; the true recipients of the Bible Covenants. Following the destruction of David's Kingdom (its dismemberment first by Babylonians and then by Assyrian's) the forced depopulation of Israel and its people in Exile and bondage, their release by Cyrus the Great and their return and restoration of the Temple, the population of Palestine was very mixed. Although some did indeed belonged to the tribe of Judah and others to one of the other tribes of Israel, many others were descendants of other patriarchs, but, especially, of Esau. These were the Edomites who had been conquered and now assimilated and become co-religionists with the Judahites and remnants of the other tribes of Israel. Moreover, this mixed race were melded together by a hybrid religion developed during the captivity in Babylon. This is the religion of the Pharisee .... Pharisaism ... the man-made religion of the Talmud that is today called Judaism. This man-centred, man-made religion was the religion vehemently condemned by Christ since it is the antithesis of the Mosaic Law and the prophets and makes the Word of God of no effect (Matt. 15:1-9).

"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for He would not walk in JEWRY, because the JEWS sought to kill Him."(John 7:1)
Here, the English word "Jewry" was translated from the Greek word "Ioudaia", which denoted the land of Judaea. This was acknowledged by modern redactors who chose not to use the word "Jewry" but the correct translation "Judaea." For example, in the New American Standard Bible:

"And after these things Jesus was walking in Galilee; for He was unwilling to walk in JUDAEA, because the JEWS were seeking to kill Him."(John 7:1)
Thus, Christ was unwilling to walk in Judaea – Jewry - because the Jews - the Judaeans - were seeking to kill Him. That is: Judaea = Jewry and Jews = Judaeans. A Jew is properly a Judaean and Jewry properly Judaea.

A modern misconception is that "the Jews" are direct descendants of Jacob and so the people of Israel, the true, biblical Israelites. However, by the time of Jesus, because of wars, enslavement, migrations and miscegenation, a Jew may or may not have descended from Jacob. He could have been descended from a number of patriarchs, especially Esau, since Edomites were then dominant in the racial mix. However, although a disparate racial mix the Jews by this time all recognised Pharisaism as their personal and state religion and NOT the Law of Moses. And so, a point of uttermost importance: someone who is called a "Jew" in the Bible is not necessarily a member of the tribe of Judah, a true Israelite, or even a Semite nor are they an essential part of the Yahweh's Chosen People, a follower of Moses and the prophets. In the Bible, a Jew is simply a resident of Judaea .... he is simply a Judaean ... with or without the special status arising from blood of the Covenant People. Yet, this fact of historical identity has been subverted by a secret force whose aim is to use the ancient yet special status of the true biblical Covenant People, the true Chosen People of Yahweh, for their own very dark designs. That is why this incredibly well organised and well-financed secret force created a "secondary meaning" for the new word "Jew," which is not the understanding intended by the 18th century redactors of the New Testament. That is, those who today call themselves Jews and arrogate the special status as God's Chosen People and all its privileges by claiming to be direct descendants of the tribes of Israel and of David, Judah, Jacob and Abraham. Millions claim this yet few of them are "Jews" in the proper sense as they are not "Judaeans" or residents of Judaea. That is: the so-called modern day Jews -the Modern Tribe of Jews- are not "the Jews" of the Bible. In other words, the Modern Tribe of Jews claiming the territory in Palestine that was Once the Holy Land are not the biblical Jews, they are not the true biblical Covenant People: they are not "returning" to their "Promised Land" because they were never there in the first place ...



When, in 1604, James VI, King of Scotland became King James I of England, the first ruler of Great Britain and Ireland, he ruled a nation in religious and political turmoil. And, when a leading Puritan spokesman, Dr John Reynolds, proposed that a new English Bible be issued in honour of the new king, James, saw this as an opportunity to bring about a unity with the church service in Presbyterian Scotland and Episcopal England. The redaction began in 1604 and was completed and published in 1611 and this the new English Bible became known as the "Authorised Version" because its making was authorised by King James. This "Authorised Version" became the "Official Bible of England" and the only Bible of the Anglican church. There have been several revisions of the King James Bible in 1615, 1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769 with the most substantive changes occurring in the eighteenth century. Then, Dr Thomas Paris (1762) published an extensive revision at Cambridge while Dr Benjamin Blayney did the same at Oxford (1769). Blayney's redactions included much modernisation of spelling, punctuation, and expression, but, in which the exact words in the 1611 Bible first edition are used. It is this 1769 update by Blayney that is the basis of the modern King James Bible. Also, since 1885, 14 books representing the Apocrypha were "officially" removed from it. These Apocryphal books were included at the insistence of the king and, unlike the Rheims-Douai and other Roman Catholic Bibles that scattered them throughout the Old Testament, were placed between the Testaments.

Consequently, any modern, so-called "1611 Authorised King James Version" available today is NOT a facsimile of the original 1611 "Authorised Version" but a copy of the 1769 revision. Even those editions that may even proclaim "1611" in the frontispiece to promote sales are deceptions, for, they too are simply modern print runs of the Blayney's 1769 edition. These are editions in which the original text and words of the "1611 Authorised King James Version" have been altered with spellings revised and some words changed in almost every printing done since 1769 and, also, with fourteen entire books plus extra prefatory features removed from almost every printing done since 1885. To get an original, un-redacted "1611 Authorised King James Version" is more problematic and far more expensive. Originals are rare and eminently collectible and fetch huge prices while facsimiles and exact photographic facsimile edition are less exorbitant but still expensive.

There are 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet and not now nor was there ever an equivalent letter "J"; nor is there any Hebrew letter that carries even an approximate sound of the consonant letter "J." Furthermore, there is there not a letter "J" in the Greek alphabet. In fact, although the letter "J" is firmly established as the tenth letter and seventh consonant in the English alphabet it is a recent addition to the English script. It was inserted in the alphabet after "I," from which it was developed and credited to Petrus Ramus (1515-1572) who first distinguish "I" and "J" as representing separate sounds. John 19:19 refers to the inscription Pontius Pilate had posted over Jesus' cross that in the Greek is "Ieous Nazoraios Basilius Ioudaios," which in modern Bibles is rendered: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews" In the fourth century, Jerome translated the Bible from the Greek into Latin and his treatment of this verse in the Latin Vulgate was: "Iesus Nazerenus Rex Iudaeorum." The acronym of this verse used on Catholic statues, icons and imagery is "INRI" .... because there was no "J." The Wiclif, Wickliff or Wycliffe Edition published in 1380 is the earliest version of the New Testament in English from the Latin Vulgate Edition and in it Jesus is there mentioned as One of the "iewes." That is, the 14th century middle English version of the Latin "Iudaeus" pronounced "hew-weeze," in the plural, and "iewe" pronounced "hew-wee" in the singular.

It was not until the middle of the 17th century that the use of "J" as an initial found common usage in English books. As such, all writers before this time were wholly ignorant of the letter "J." For instance, William Shakespeare never ever saw the word "Jew" never mind use the word it in any of his works. In the Merchant of Venice first published in about 1600, Shakespeare wrote: "what is the reason? I am a Iewe; hath not a Iewe eyes?" Even the great lexicographer, Samuel Johnson, was unusually ambivalent in his use of the "J" letter, for, in his seminal English Dictionary of 1755 and 1756 words beginning with ancient "I" and the new letter "J" are interspersed. Moreover, although he defines "To Judaize" as "To conform to the manner of the Jews" in both editions he finds no room to list the word "Jew." The 1933 edition of The Oxford English Dictionary is helpful in this respect and lists the first published usage of the word "Jew." In 1653, by Greaves in his "Seraglio," 150. "In the King's Seraglio, the sultanas are permitted to employ divers Jewes-women about their ordinary occasions." By Sheridan in 1775 in his play "The Rivals," Act II, Scene I: "She shall have a skin like a mummy, and the beard of a Jew." And in 1700 by Bishop Patrick in his Commentary on Deuteronomy 28:37: "Better we cannot express the most cut-throat dealing, than thus, you use me like a Jew".

The 1841 English Hexapla is a compendium of six English translations of the New Testament, which are: the Wycliffe version of 1380 (the first English Scripture, hand-copied prior to Gutenberg's invention of the printing press in 1455), The Tyndale version of 1534-1536 (the first English printed Scripture), and Cranmer's Great Bible of 1539 (the first Authorized English Bible); The Geneva "1557" (the English Bible of the Protestant Reformation); the Rheims (the first Roman Catholic English version of 1582); and the King James First Edition of 1611. In the Wycliffe version John 19.19 reads: "ihesus of Nazareth kyng of the iewes." Similarly, in the Tyndale Edition of the New Testament published in 1525 Jesus was likewise described as One of the "Iewes." Likewise, in the Cranmer Edition Jesus was again described as One of the "Iewes."; in the Geneva Edition Jesus was also described as One of the "Iewes." In the Rheims Edition Jesus was described as One of the "Ievves"; and in the King James Edition, also known as the Authorised Version, Jesus was described again as one of the "Iewes." That is, the word "Jew" does not appear in any of these Bibles. First references to Jesus as a so-called "Jew" (which He was most definitely not) are found in the 18th century redactions of the 14th century English editions of the New Testament. The first Bible in which the word "Jew" first appears is the 1729 Daniel Mace New Testament in Romans 2:13 – 3:21. Afterwards in 1750 in the Douai; the Catholic English Bible newly revised and corrected by Richard Challoner using the 1609 translation of the Latin Vulgate. In 1755 by John Wesley in his "New Testament with Explanatory Notes." Benjamin Blayney's 1769 modernised version of the 1611 edition of the Authorised King James Bible. And, in John Worsley's 1770 "New Testament or New Covenant of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" with notes as translated from the Greek.

The evolution of the Holy Bible – the story of how the Bible arrived to us in its present form – is testament to the working of Higher Hidden Hands in the historical process. How the revealed Word of God was preserved in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek and transmitted into the modern world via Latin from which it was released into common possession by its translation into the English language by John Wycliffe and others during the Great Reformation.


"At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day" 2 Kings 16:6

The word "Jew" is a relatively modern invention used, seemingly indiscriminately and interchangeably, by 18th century redactors to describe Israelites, Judahites and Judaeans. It first appeared in these eighteenth century Bibles and it first appears within these redactions in 2 Kings 16:6 .... in an episode that describes a war between Israel and Judah: when Rezin, king of Syria and Pekah, king of Israel went to war with wicked Ahaz, king of Judah. The Syrians "drave the Jews from Elath" who were in possession of it and so here is the first time that the inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah are called "Jews" when more properly they should be called Judahites. However, the point here is this: the very first time the word "Jew" is found in the modern Bible, they are at war with Israel.



"And Jehovah said to her [Rebekah] Two nations are in your womb, and two kinds of people shall be separated from your bowels. And the one people shall be stronger than the other people, the older [Esau] shall serve the younger [Jacob]" (Gen. 25:23)
"They [the Edomites] were hereafter no other than [non-Israelite] Jews." Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews Book XIII, Chapter IX, Verse 1, p. 279
They [the non-Israelite Edomites] were then incorporated with the Jewish nation" Article entitled "EDOM, IDUMEA," The Jewish Encyclopedia Vol. V, p. 41(1904)
"In the days of John Hyrcanus [end of the second century BC] … the [non-Israelite] Edomites became a section of the Jewish people." Article entitled "EDOM," Encyclopaedia Judaica Vol. 6, p. 378 (1971)
"From then on they [the non-Israelite Edomites] constituted a part of the Jewish people, Herod [King of Judea] being one of their descendants" Article entitled "EDOM (Idumea)," The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia p. 589 (1977)
The Edomites are descendants of Esau ("hairy, rough"), the eldest son of Isaac, and twin brother of Jacob, whose singular appearance at birth originated the name (Gen 25:25). Also, he was given the name of Edom ("red") from his conduct in connection with the red lentil "pottage" for which he sold his birthright (Gen. 25:30, Gen. 25:31).

Esau was much loved by his father and was, because he was first-born, his heir but was tricked into selling his birthright to his younger brother, Jacob, with the help of his mother, for a meal of red lentil pottage. Esau lost his father's birthright and his paternal blessing due to Jacob's subterfuge and thus raised the anger of Esau, who vows vengeance (Gen. 25:29-34; 27:1-41). Yahweh thereafter called Esau, "Edom" and the country subsequently settled by Esau/Edom and his brood was "the country of Edom" (Gen 32:3). Jacob, the grandson of Abraham and Sarah, the son of Isaac and Rebecca, is the ancestor of the Israelites. Later, Yahweh told Jacob that his name was no longer Jacob, but henceforth, Israel (Gen. 32:22-32; Gen. 35:10). Jacob's twelve sons were the ancestors of the Twelve Tribes of Israel and their descendants are described as the Twelve Tribes of Israel originally identified by the names of the twelve sons of Jacob: the Patriarchs Joseph, Judah, Issachar, Benjamin, Levi, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Simeon, Dan, Zebulun, Reuben. Later, Joseph's two sons, his eldest, Manasseh and his second son, Ephraim, were adopted by Jacob as his own and so those two tribes replaced Joseph and Levi among the Twelve of Israel. The patriarch Judah was the fourth son born to Jacob (Gen 29:35).

The Edomites were thus the progeny of Esau, whose name was Edom, so called from the red lentil pottage he sold his birthright for to his brother Jacob (later, at Yahweh's behest, called Israel). These Edomites were also separate from the Twelve Tribes of Israel and so were not true Israelites. They lived separately in a different land nurturing an enmity originating with their patriarch, Esau/Edom for Jacob/Israel and his descendants: a hatred born of a deep sense of injustice and betrayal that birthright and grace had been arrogated by trickery. Edom's violence against Israel (Jacob) was so intense not only due to a sense of betrayal but also because they both came from the same parents (Isaac and Rebekah); in fact, this great and enduring enmity began in Rebekah's womb, continued as the boys grew to manhood and endured until today in the phenomenon of the struggle of nations. Moreover, because of this enduring bitterness and jealousy, Esau would have destroyed Jacob had Yahweh not intervened

Ezekiel 35:1-15 describes Yahweh's judgement on, and devastation of, Edom who exulted over Israel's humiliation, who was their most bitter foe, and who "had a perpetual hatred to them, to the very name of an Israelite." Esau/Edom in his hate and anger pursued "his brother with the sword, and did cast off all pity, and his anger did tear perpetually, and he kept his wrath for ever." (Amos 1:11). Hence, the Edomites' "perpetual hatred" and "wrath forever" toward Israelites. That is, this seminal struggle of nations, which began in Rebekah's womb, endures today in the modern-day descendants of Israel (Jacob) and Edom (Esau) .... a great struggle between the Israelites and the Edomites.

The Edomites lived and prospered in a land separate from Israel but were later attacked and defeated by Saul (1 Sam. 14:47) and some forty years later, by David (2 Sam. 8:13-14). Later, in the reign of Jehosaphat, (c 914 BC), the Edomites attempted to invade Israel, but failed (2 Chron. 20:22). They later joined with Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Chaldea, in his invasion of Judaea, the Judaean kingdom of the Two Tribes, and helped in his destruction of Jerusalem as well as the subsequent deportation of the Judaeans to Babylonia (c 630-562 BC). The terrible cruelty displayed by the Edomites at this time provoked fearful denunciations by the later prophets (Isa 34:5-8; Isa 63:1-4; Jer 49:17). Afterwards, the Edomites invaded and held possession of the south of Palestine but they eventually fell under the growing Chaldean power (Jer 27:3, Jer 27:6). The Edomites were thus Semites since they are closely related in blood and in language to the Israelites but they had no claim on the unique Bible Covenant and Birthright Promises gifted by Yahweh to Abraham, then to Jacob/Israel and then to his descendants. However, for more than four centuries, the Edomites continued to prosper but during the warlike rule of the Maccabeans, they were again completely subdued, and even forced to conform to Jewish laws and rites, and submit to the government of Jewish prefects. Here, at this time, the Edomites become incorporated within the resurgent Judaean kingdom.

Edomites are therefore descended from Edom (Esau) whose descendants later intermarried with the Turks to produce a Turco-Edomite mixture which later became known as Khazars. That is, most of today's Jews are descendants of this interbreeding that produced a race called Khazars who had once governed an empire called Khazaria. Furthermore, this hybrid race Edomite/Turk/Khazar who created the Khazar kingdom and who between the seventh and ninth centuries AD, adopted the religion of Judaism. And, it is these Khazar Jews who are the ancestors of the vast majority of today's Jewish people. That is, Edomite/Turk/Khazars are the ancestors of the modern "Jews" including the Torah-true and Zionist Jews who spuriously claim right to the land of Palestine claiming it it is theirs by biblical demands and ancestral rights.

Consequently, the majority of today's Jewish people are known as "Jews" not because they are Judahites and descended from Jacob/Israel but because their Edomite/Turk/Khazar ancestors in their Kingdom of Khazaria adopted the religion of Judaism, called themselves "Jews" and arrogated the Birthright Promises and Bible Covenants belonging to the Israelites, but especially those belonging to the Judahites.

Thus, "Jews" are not Israelites and certainly they are not Judahites. Hence, modern Jews are not heir to the Bible Covenants nor to the ancient Nation of Israel given by Yahweh to the Israelites and the Judahites and so have no Divine Right or biblical mandate to the modern Land of Palestine.

Similarly, Jesus of Nazareth was not a "Jew" he was a Judahite, and Jesus Christ was not "King of the Jews."